University of San Francisco

Main menu

Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Former Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will be the inaugural speaker to participate in Conversations for the Common Good, a new speakers series that invites inclusive voices to the challenge of serving the public good. Join us in meeting Mayor Villaraigosa and POLITICO’s David Siders in conversation on Thursday, February 1, 5:00 PM on campus at USF’s McLaren Conference Center.

A Primer for CONVERSATIONS

Can Antonio Villaraigosa trump the competition?

The upcoming 2018 California gubernatorial race will be loaded with interesting democratic candidates. Amidst political heavy hitters such as Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and State Treasurer John Chiang, Antonio Villaraigosa stands to run on a platform of educational equity. The former California State Assemblyman, who was also the Mayor of Los Angeles, is hoping to fortify a well distinguished political career by winning the vote to occupy California’s top office. Villaraigosa’s reputation is hallmarked by epic civic and municipal partnership building efforts. He is credited with turning around the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)’s poor performing schools with the construction of an organization called the Partnership for Los Angeles Schools, which works with the LAUSD as a coalition. Additionally, Villaraigosa led efforts that have resulted in successfully combating spiking Los Angeles crime rates by hiring more police officers.

Villaraigosa has stated publicly numerous times that if elected to office as California Governor, he would defy President Trump if his administration were to order the deportation of undocumented persons, including DREAMers. Villaraigosa has also said that he is not in support of building a wall to keep out immigrants from our southern border. Given his policy stances on immigration, Villaraigosa will no doubt find himself bumping heads with one America’s most controversial president. On the campaign trail, Villaraigosa will find himself challenged with the daunting task of unifying the Mexican-American vote which has been sharply sliced by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom. As the campaign season begins to ramp up, it will be very fascinating to see how Villaraigosa energizes his base.

Questions to Ask

In what ways do you feel your experiences as State Assemblyman have prepared you to govern California?

What measures can be implemented in the State Assembly and Senate to ensure transparency and fairness regarding the investigation into claims of sexual harassment in the state legislature?

Given the current socio-political impact of the #MeToo movement, is there a credible need for comprehensive re-training on sexual harassment as well as cultural and gender sensitivity issues within the state legislature?

What strategies can be used to protect California’s coastline against the ongoing threat of offshore drilling?

Can we legally protect California as a sanctuary state with minimal federal disruption?

What are your thoughts on allocating cannabis tax money towards the implementation of a state-wide cannabis equity program?

In what ways can California restore its educational system to its once highly regarded status?

Given the current lack of bipartisan participation in Washington D.C., how are you prepared to discourage that type of political climate in the state legislature?

This post was written by Calyn Kelley, Urban and Public Affairs ’19. Calyn will be introducing Mayor Villaraigosa on Thursday, February 1 in the opening event.

Donald Trump was elected as the 45th President of the United States. President-Elect Trump has spewed racism, sexism and xenophobic ideals since his campaign started and it carried him all the way to victory. As soon as it was announced that he would win the bid to be the next President over Hillary Clinton, you could hear a collective gasp from the city of San Francisco and while many were shocked a man with his rhetoric and past could become the face of this country, I was not.

San Francisco and other cities in the Bay Area are really no different in their approach compared to southern cities and their residents that are constantly looked down on. The city still clings on the reputation built in the 1960’s and 70’s as this utopian place of solidarity and free thoughts. The “progressive” San Francisco is all but gone, not that it ever really existed (check out Urban Renewal in the Fillmore) but whatever you pretended it to be, it has been displaced. When was the last time residents of San Francisco looked themselves in the mirror and checked their own racist views and actions? You would think the unjust killings of civilians by police officers would do it… right?

Most people in San Francisco can ignore the issues that are faced by many people when it doesn’t directly impact their lives, in fact it actually helps their quality of life. The $5 coffee shops, that displace the corner store, can be seen as a cool hip place to meet friends and get work done, but what about the family of the person displaced? Look at the Mission District today, some will argue that communities naturally change over time, but being in the Mission makes me feel like I’m living during the apartheid in South Africa. Every corner you can see the historical importance of the Latino community with murals and cuisine but the high rents of residential spaces attract rich white transplants from other cities. The new residents walk around looking down on long time residents and it’s a bit sickening. The same can be said about the Fillmore district and Western Addition, but most of the black owned businesses in that neighborhood were displaced during the 1960’s and 70’s, so it’s a bit harder to find the history there. The destruction and mistreatment of people of color is constant so when a friend asked me “aren’t you afraid of Trump because he’s racist?” my answer is simply, no.

The racism in this country is very real, but we pretend to ignore it whenever we can. I am still not over how the government treated the people of New Orleans during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. If you think we’ve moved passed that, you are sadly mistaken. Every month there is a public lynching in the form of police executions taking place. I watched historically black communities become displaced over the last few years, a few examples are, Harlem, North Philadelphia and Oakland. The education systems in urban areas are crumbling and I watched how state officials dis-invest in HBCU’s. During this same time mass incarnation is still an issue and I watch people rejoice over the changing marijuana laws that will enrich thousands of white owned corporations. Even with these new state laws, federal law still classifies marijuana as illegal so if you’re black please be aware of this because we will continue to profiled while driving and stopped and frisked for the color of our skin. Last time I checked the water in Flint is still toxic and the Chicago police department continue to hold civilians illegally for years. Whenever there seems to be a pinch of black progress in America, ignorant white rage rises up in an attempt to reverse it (read White Rage written by Carol Anderson). The sentiment for most Americans is, in order to have winners we must have losers. If President Obama symbolized progressed in the eyes of millions of black folks, it must have meant the decline in the eyes of millions of white folks. Donald Trump’s rise should have been expected. If it took for a monster for America to address its racist nature then so be it.

When the hypertension dies down, will those who oppose him and his views still be on the front-line fighting for fairness? Or will they become reclusive due to his ignorance having no major direct impact on their lives as they were led to believe he would? Americas oldest tradition is racism and it will carry on with the electing of Donald Trump unless the people from the hardest hit communities come together rise up.

Corey Cook, Professor of Politics is currently on leave but is still a critical observer of local, state and national politics. Professor Cook regularly contributes to the Leo T. McCarthy Center blog while he establishes the School of Public Service at Boise State University.

Idaho was one of a handful of states that rejected both major party candidates during the nomination process. Both Secretary Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were dealt decisive defeats during the Idaho Democratic Caucus, and Idaho Republican Primary, respectively. Sure, turnout was low in both contests, but neither was particularly close. Trump received 28% in the primary, losing to Ted Cruz and finishing ahead of only John Kasich and a rapidly sinking Marco Rubio who withdrew his candidacy a week later. Secretary Clinton fared even more poorly, scoring only 21% of caucus goes against Bernie Sanders’ 78%.

So suffice it tosay that folks in Idaho don’t seem too jazzed about next week’s election. At Boise State University, we’ve held debate watch events, hosted panels, and generally talked a lot about the election. But the more I talk with folks the more I get the sense that neither outcome will be particularly appealing to Idahoans. One prominent state Republican confided about the challenge this election has posed to mainstream conservatives – that neither candidate represents his values. Still, nobody expects the race in Idaho to be particularly close – in fact, the word on the street is that the results here will be quite similar to those in 2008 and 2012.

I’m still getting up to speed on Idaho politics, but it seems to me to be a mix of Alaska and Utah. Yet this race is playing out quite differently than in those comparable states. As in Idaho, both Clinton and Trump were defeated by Sanders and Cruz in the Alaska caucuses (Trump lost narrowly while Clinton was defeated by a similar 4-1 margin). And prominent Alaska Republicans, including both United States Senators, have withdrawn their support of Trump. Yet recent polls suggest that the candidates are neck and neck. The most recent survey has Secretary Clinton in the lead. The last time Alaska voted for a Democrat for president? 1964.

In Utah, something similarly remarkable, yet quite different, is happening. As in Idaho, Trump and Clinton lost their respective caucuses. Only in this case, Trump came in third (and last) behind Cruz and Kasich while Sanders defeated Clinton by a 4-1 margin. But in Utah, where Democrats seem willing to line up behind their nominee, opposition to Trump has fueled the independent candidacy of little/un- known Congressional staffer Evan McMullin into a highly competitive position. Some recent surveys have the three candidates locked into a dead heat. Trump is wildly unpopular (a recent survey had him at a net negative favorability of -43 points, an astonishing figure). And McMullin has gained some positive attention and has an outside chance to win the state. The last time a Democrat won in Utah? 1964. The last time a minor candidate had a chance of winning? Maybe never.

This has been one of the interesting themes of this election. As Democrats and Republicans grapple with wildly and historically unpopular nominees, traditional voting patterns have been disrupted. And down ballot races might be affected in ways that won’t be clear until after the election.

And yet Idaho, despite its similarities to Alaska and Utah, seems ready to reprise its previous vote tallies. Alternative candidates have failed to gain traction and despite the clear unpopularity of the two nominees, fellow partisans seem to have fallen into line.

Despite polls showing the race getting closer as election day nears, the potential for a generational partisan realignment remain significant. Just focusing on the traditional red state, consider some political implications. If Secretary Clinton wins, what will happen in Alaska, Utah, and Idaho to the growing gulf between mainstream conservatives and Trump voters? Will they coalesce as in Idaho, disintegrate into competing blocs as in Utah, or weaken allegiance to the party as in Alaska? And if Trump wins, how will governance change in those places? Will mainstream conservatives holding Senatorial seats and Governor’s mansions work effectively with the Trump White House, or will these splits emerge between the states and federal government?

For the next week, a lot of attention will be paid to who will win or lose the election. Sadly, far less attention will be paid to the important foreign and domestic policy implications of those outcomes. But while the elections are typically conceived as finish lines, they are more akin to water stations along a marathon route. The potential disruption of long term voting patterns and reshaping of partisan coalitions instigated during this election and that could gradually evolve over the next several electoral cycles, might be the most enduring aspect of this election.